Talk:Slipstream fiction

(Redirected from Talk:Slipstream genre)
Latest comment: 11 days ago by JJPMaster in topic Requested move 7 November 2024

Unclear statement

edit

What does the expression"between science fiction/fantasy or mainstream literary fiction" mean? I assume it means "between science fiction and fantasy, or between science fiction and mainstream literary fiction", but the slash mark makes it confusing. Wakablogger2 (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

  • It means "between science fiction and mainstream literary fiction, or between fantasy and mainstream literary fiction". Scifi and fantasy are very similar genres, except that one deals with magic, mythical creatures, and alternate pasts, while the other deals with technology, aliens/mutants, and alternate futures. It's extremely common to group them together as "science fiction/fantasy". A book that is halfway between scifi and fantasy (Dragonriders of Pern comes to mind) will be marked as scifi, fantasy, or scifi/fantasy, based on the balance of the genres and the whims of the person doing the labelling. --173.180.104.68 (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Can we get some examples? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.245.5 (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Could you perhaps give a bit more description to this?

edit

After having read this definition, I must admit that I have absolutely no better idea as to what slipstream fiction is than when I entered it into the search panel.

It is a cross genre approach that makes you feel wonky? Please, could you give a slightly more elaborate discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.232.226.141 (talk) 21:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

A category "Slipstream novels"?

edit

So I wondered whether or not creating a category Category:Slipstream novels on the basis of this list would be a good idea.

What do you think about it? Is Slipstream a truly mature, distinct-able genre? I doubt so with not a single Philip K Dick novel being on that list.

--Fixuture (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Examples needed

edit

I feel like this article could benefit from a brief examples section with some works that have been described as belonging to this genre. This would probably work best in prose form, with descriptions of why each work was categorized this way, rather than just a list of titles. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 04:08, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply


Is Donnie Darko a cinematic example?

Yes, examples are definitely needed. Would the works of Franz Kafka qualify as Slipstream? --2003:71:4F40:3A09:FC40:C701:70F3:EE2B (talk) 00:44, 7 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 7 November 2024

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) JJPMaster (she/they) 10:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)Reply


Slipstream genreSlipstream fiction – Very little precedent for "genre" in article titles like this one. "Slipstream fiction" obviously communicates the subject much better both out of consistency with speculative fiction or science fiction and due to the fact that "genre" can refer to many things outside of fiction. Orchastrattor (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Raladic (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Note: WikiProject Science Fiction and WikiProject Literature have been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.